Global System matrix assembly with different elements.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility and consistency of assembling a global system matrix using different finite element method (FEM) elements, such as frames, planes, shells, and solids. Participants explore theoretical implications, numerical considerations, and practical modeling techniques related to this topic.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the consistency of composing a global system matrix with different FEM elements, noting that while they may share the same degrees of freedom (DOF) per node, the local matrices differ.
  • Another participant argues that the main issue arises from differing shape functions at the interfaces of the joined elements, which could lead to inconsistencies in load transfer and potential deformation issues.
  • Some participants suggest that while different DOFs can lead to inconsistencies, it is possible for results to converge to a continuum mechanics solution despite these inconsistencies, although this is not guaranteed.
  • A participant expresses concern about the necessity of sub-structuring the entire model due to the potential issues raised, seeking clarification on modern software techniques for discretization.
  • Another participant reassures that models combining incompatible elements are common, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that the model's assumptions are sensible and that constraints are appropriately applied to maintain consistency.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of using incompatible elements in modeling. While some acknowledge the potential for convergence in results, others highlight the risks of inconsistencies and deformation issues, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves assumptions about the behavior of elements at their interfaces and the implications of using different shape functions, which may not be fully addressed in the current context.

Ronankeating
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I would like to know if its possible and consistent to compose the global system matrix with different FEM elements such as frame, plane, shell solid etc... Theoritically all of them will have the same DOF per node just only comprising the local matrix will differ. And as long as we solve the linear algebraic systems with any methods that shouldnit do any harm at all.

Your comments will be appreciated.

Regards,
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
There is no mathematical or numerical problems with this. The problem is what the results of the model mean. The issue is not so much different degrees of freedom but different shape functions at the faces or edges of the elements that are joined.

If the shape functions are different, the assembled structure will have cracks or overlaps when it deforms. That means the load transfer between the elements is inconsistent in some way.

Elements with different DOFs at the nodes will have different shape functions almost by definition, but doing something like joining several low-order elements to one higher-order element is also inconsistent.

Sometimes the results will still converge to the continuum mechanics solution in spite of the inconsistencies, but that is not guaranteed. You can sometimes make an arm-waving argument using St Venant's principle and say the errors are only local to where the incompatible elements join and don't affect the results elsewhere, but IMO you really need to do a numerical study to confirm that before you believe it.
 
Thanks for that valuable post, as usual.

The thing you said really has made me pondered for a while, because I almost thought that I'm at "voila". What you said is really coherent and absolutely makes sense.
So, does that mean that I have no option left other than sub-structuring the whole structure, compound etcc ?

I also wonder, what kind of techniques are using nowadays s/w(Catia, Solid, etcc) for that discretization phase? Could you shed some light on that, as well?

Best Regards,
 
Ronankeating said:
So, does that mean that I have no option left other than sub-structuring the whole structure, compound etcc ?

No, people make models joining incompatible elements quite often. You just have to think whether the way you are using the model is sensible.

For eaxmple, think about an object modeled with elements with only translation variables, and mounted on some pillars modeled with beams including rotation variables.

When you assemble the complete model, the joints are effectively pinned not built-in, because the rotation variable at the end of the each pillar isn't connected to anything else and can take any value it wants.

If that is a reasonable (conservative) assumption, you don't have a problem. If not, you need to add something to the model to constrain the rotation somehow.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
15K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K